Cruze Diesel proves to be the superior ride in the lineup. But is it worth the premium?

The questions surrounding the introduction of a diesel engine into the Chevrolet Cruze lineup are, of course, manifold. Can the Americans build a small diesel worthy of competing with the Europeans? (Cruze Diesel revelation No. 1: They don’t have to, they just sourced it from their Germany-based subsidiary, Opel.) Can the Cruze Diesel compete with Volkswagen‘s segment-dominating Jetta TDI? (No. 2: The CD offers more power with better highway fuel economy for less money.) But, perhaps most importantly, why would anyone buy the diesel version of the Cruze versus the distinctly lower-cost LS and the supposedly almost-as-frugal — if you believe anything Natural Resources Canada has to say about fuel economy — Cruze Eco? Indeed, considering how niche the diesel segment remains compared with mainstream gasoline-fueled products, why would anyone buy any diesel?

Surprisingly, the first reason that comes to mind, at least in this comparison of Cruzes, is that the diesel-powered CD is the more satisfying drive. This comes as a bit of a surprise: While it was easy to envisage that the CD’s little oil burner would be livelier than the base LS’s thoroughly pedestrian 138-horsepower 1.8L four, that it has more get up and go — substantially, even — than the turbocharged Eco engine is surprising. The Eco’s 1.4-litre turbo — also with 138-hp but with more torque, 148 pound-feet versus 125 — has deservedly garnered praise as much for its comportment as its frugality.

Nonetheless, it was immediately apparent that the CD’s 2.0L high-pressure turbodiesel’s 151 horsepower and the claimed 264 lb.-ft. (280 lb.-ft. for short bursts) of torque provided more urge than either of the Cruze’s other engines. It’s more than a little odd to think of the diesel as the sportiest engine in a lineup, but in the Cruze’s case it’s true. Acceleration, officially timed at a slightly deceiving (diesels are a little slow for the first 10 metres off the line) 8.6 seconds to reach 96 kilometres an hour (60 mph), is easily up to any comparison in the segment and, passing acceleration (a much more realistic measure of real-world performance) is stellar. Rest assured, one doesn’t need to trade performance for fuel economy.

Nor civility. As with the latest generation of Volkswagen TDIs, there is little to mark the CD’s lack of spark plugs. On start-up, there is a little clatter, but that soon disappears as the engine warms up. Inside the cabin, there’s precious little to indicate that this Cruze is fuelled by anything other than diesel (though, be sure to remember that when refuellling). Those thinking that The General might be at a deficit to Volkswagen with its first (North American) diesel offering will be surprised.

2014 Chevrolet CruzeNick Tragianis /
Driving

There’s nothing surprising, however, about the compression-ignited Cruze’s fuel economy, though. Not surprising is that it thoroughly trounced the base LS, though that car’s 8.0 L/100 km observed average fuel economy was nonetheless impressive. But even the Eco model, impressively frugal at 6.8 L/100 km overall in our 150 kilometres city and highway drive, was trounced by the CD’s 6.1 L/100 km average (please note that our real-world fuel economy figures were biased by having driven more highway miles than urban).

On the highway, the diesel recorded the same 5.1 L/100 km at 100 km/h as the Eco did at a slower 80 km/h (the LS not all that far behind at 6.2). At 115 km/h the gap widened, with the Diesel recording 5.8 L/100 km while the Eco and the LS managed only 6.8 and 7.8 respectively. None of these figures present any great revelations — diesels are renowned for their long distance cruising abilities — but they do confirm that Chevrolet’s oil burner is on par with Volkswagen’s (the Jetta TDI posted similar numbers to the CD).

The conventional gas-powered Cruze got 8.0 L/100 km.

Nick Tragianis, Driving

The Eco Cruze got 6.9 L/100 km.

Nick Tragianis, Driving

The diesel Cruze got 6.1L/100 km.

Nick Tragianis, Driving

However, the Cruze Diesel’s parsimony at lower speeds did surprise, all the more so since NRCan rates the Eco and the Diesel almost the same — 7.8 L/100 km for the Eco automatic versus the Diesel’s 7.5 — in the urban cycle. However, once again confirming that the official figures are biased in favour of turbos at the expense of diesels, the CD managed a creditable 7.6 L/100 km about town while the Eco needed 8.5 litres for every 100 kilometres of city driving (the LS, unsurprisingly, was the laggard at 9.8 L/100 km).

Putting all of this in perspective, it’s worth noting that against its direct competition — again, Volkswagen’s diesel-dominating Jetta — the Cruze offers more performance and similar fuel economy for slightly less money (the CD starts at a smidge under $25,000, though most are priced closer to $30,000).

Where the evaluation gets a little trickier is determining whether its superior fuel economy makes it a better value than lesser Cruzes. Currently, the CD demands $3,900 over the Eco, a premium unlikely to be paid back by our diesel’s observed 0.7 L/100 km improved overall fuel economy. However (and, my gosh, don’t automotive sales types have an answer for every discrepancy one might note in their marketing message), GM Canada says that some of that uptick is a result of the CD’s addition of upscale features — such as heated leather seats and 17-inch wheels. Factoring out the bling, GM claims that the diesel engine itself commands about a $1,500 premium, in line with figures cited by BMW, Audi and Volkswagen (the modern turbodiesel’s high-pressure fuel rail is a complicated and robust affair compared with a gasoline engine’s electronic fuel injection). Based on that figure, you’d have to drive the Diesel about 150,000 kilometres to recoup the cost of the engine alone over the Eco, still rendering a questionable buy on economics alone. Nonetheless, whether comparing the absolute cost of the Diesel (with all its added accessories) or just the absolute cost of the diesel engine alone, it is tough to justify the uptick in simple accounting terms alone (of course, hybrids, despite also improving fuel economy over their conventional counterparts face the same fiscal vagaries).

If the Cruze does fail on the economics front (as, indeed, many diesels do), it is because Chevrolet, like most of the industry, insists on selling diesels only in the “premium” levels of their offerings. That’s why North American diesel sales have so far, with the exception of the aforementioned Jetta TDI, been limited to luxury marques. None of this alters the fact that diesels consume less gas and, were they offered in the same bare bones trims as their conventional counterparts, would save money in the long run. Perhaps more important, considering the low opinion most North Americans have of diesels, their performance can be superior and their comportment thoroughly civilized. Certainly, that’s the case in the Cruze lineup.